Muslim Brotherhood (NAIT) Directly Confronts President of the United States

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March  20, 2017:

In response to President Trump’s second Executive Order designed to keep individuals from hostile nations from entering the United States, the Attorney General of Hawaii announced he will file suit against the Trump administration.  The plaintiff listed in Hawaii’s lawsuit is Dr. Ismail Elshikh, the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii.

The Muslim Association of Hawaii is a Muslim Brotherhood organization, which means the Muslim Brotherhood is directly confronting the President of the United States and challenging his authority.

The address of the Muslim Association of Hawaii is 1935 Aleo Place, Honolulu, Hawaii.  The property records for Honolulu reveal this property is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.  You can search the address HERE for yourself.

NAIT was created in 1973 by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Students Association per their own website.

A declassified document from the FBI’s Indianapolis office dated December 15, 1987 states:

“The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was organized by the leaders of the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) in 1973 as the parent organization of various Muslim groups in the U.S. and Canada.  The leadership of NAIT, MSA and other Muslim groups are inter-related with many leaders and members of NAIT having been identified as supporters of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the Government of Iran (GOI).  Their support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S. has been evidenced by the financial and organizational support provided through NAIT from Middle East countries to Muslims residing in the U.S. and Canada.”

A declassified FBI confidential informant (CI) report dated 8/17/1988, details the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United States at the time and states: “(CI) advised that in addition to the internal political structure and organization of NAIT as controlled by the IIIT leadership that as members of the IKHWAN they are involved in organizing external political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government.  (CI) has advised that the Ikhwan is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well organized in the United States to the point where it has set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups. They also have claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…the IIIT leadership has indicated that in this phase their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States Government and also American universities. (CI) noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic Revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool…”

Evidence entered in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas, 2008) – 15 year FBI investigation – identified the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood which directly funded Hamas (TERRORISTS) leaders and organizations.

On the last page of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document (An Explanatory Memorandum), the MB identifies NAIT as one of their organizations.

The stated objective of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is to wage civilization jihad “by OUR hands” to overthrow our government and replace it with an Islamic government ruled by sharia – Islamic law.  See “An Explanatory Memorandum” page 7 of 18.

The US v HLF evidence revealed that all of the prominent Islamic organizations in America are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here, including NAIT.

NAIT’s financial records – entered into evidence at the HLF trial – reveal NAIT directly funds Hamas leaders and Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.  See the records here and here.

Children trained by Hamas. NAIT directly funded Hamas and Hamas leaders.

Because of the massive evidence revealing NAIT is a Muslim Brotherhood organization which directly funds terrorism, the U.S. Department of Justice lists NAIT as an Unindicted Co-Conspirator in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v HLF).  See the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list here.  NAIT is listed on Page 8, paragraph VII.

Being named an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” means the government has enough evidence to indict but decides not to at that time.  In fact, after the HLF trial ended in November of 2008, the Department of Justice moved forward to prosecute the founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR itself, but after approximately six months, that effort was shut down by Attorney General Eric Holder and since that time none of the hundreds of unindicted co-conspirators have been prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

In response to NAIT’s request to the court to have its name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list, the Department of Justice filed a memorandum in which it states (page 13):

“ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with the HLF than just a parent organization.  They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas.”

The “parent organization” to which the U.S. government is referring is the Muslim Brotherhood.

In ruling on the matter, Federal Judge Jorge Solis listed key evidence, and ruled:

“The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), and with Hamas.”

HLF and IAP were Hamas (TERRORIST) organizations.  This ruling declares NAIT is directly associated with the terrorist organization Hamas headquarters overseas and its front organizations in the United States.

It should be noted, Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Association of Hawaii is a NAIT property.  The leader of this organization, Dr. Ismail Elshikh, has led several other Muslim Brotherhood organizations and would not hold those positions if he himself were not a Muslim Brother.

The Department of Justice should indict NAIT and the affiliated Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers, mosques and other organizations, arrest all Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the United States, legally seize all NAIT and Muslim Brotherhood property, and utterly dismantle their jihadi network.

If this offensive assault by the Muslim Brotherhood against the President of the United States and his effort to secure our nation and keep our enemies out is not met with significant force by the U.S. government, the Muslim Brotherhood will view this as more weakness and push harder and more violently in the coming months.

‘Explanatory Memorandum’ Detractors Ignore Evidence About MB in America

mb2by John Rossomando
IPT News
March 1, 2017

Some supposedly very smart, well-informed people are making ignorant and misleading claims in the debate over designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

The Trump administration is considering designating the nearly 90-year-old Brotherhood, which seeks a global Islamic state governed by religious law known as shariah.

Reasonable people can debate the merits. But a recent Washington Post column by Arjun Singh Sethi, an adjunct Georgetown University law professor, illustrates the way false information is being pushed by some opponents.

Designation would be “exploited and manipulated for political gain” and used to target otherwise innocent Muslim American groups, Sethi argues. It would be all the more outrageous because, “The Brotherhood doesn’t have a known presence in the U.S., most Muslim Americans know very little about it and no organization active in the U.S. has been shown to have any connection to it.”

This is entirely wrong, and there are Muslim Brotherhood documents in the public domain to prove it.

Sethi takes aim at one of those documents, a 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum” which calls for a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” whereby Brotherhood members in America work toward “destroying the Western civilization from within.” The memorandum also suggests that Islam represents a “civilization alternative.”

“This memorandum, of which there is only one known copy, has been widely discredited and called a fantasy,” Sethi writes.

That one copy, however, was seized by FBI agents from the home of Ismail Elbarasse, whom prosecutors describe as the “archivist” for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. If it was a fantasy, it was deemed sufficiently exciting to preserve. In addition, its author played a prominent role in the Brotherhood’s U.S. network.

Sethi mentions none of these facts. Neither do the Southern Poverty Law Center or the left-leaning commentary website Alternet, which cited Sethi’s column to dismiss those who point to Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the United States as “conspiracy theorists.”

Sethi further claims there is no evidence to show that “three of the largest Muslim organizations in the country — the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA], the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] and the North American Islamic Trust [NAIT] — are affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood” except for the explanatory memo.

This statement also is objectively, demonstrably false.

The explanatory memo, like most of the information known about a Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States, became public during the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) Hamas-financing trials held in Dallas. FBI agents seized a trove of internal documents – meeting minutes, reports and proposals – written by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. In addition, electronic surveillance picked up hundreds of conversations among Brotherhood conspirators.

Their task at the time was to run a series of political groups with the aim of benefiting Hamas – the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch – politically and financially. They united under the umbrella of the “Palestine Committee.”

In court papers, federal prosecutors noted that the Holy Land trial included “numerous exhibits … establishing both ISNA’s and NAIT’s intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, and the defendants in this case.”

NAIT, a subsidiary of ISNA, served as a banking outlet for HLF’s fundraising.

“HLF raised money and supported HAMAS through a bank account it held with ISNA at NAIT…,” prosecutors wrote in 2008, citing financial records admitted into evidence. “ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to ‘the Palestinian Mujahadeen,’ the original name for the HAMAS military wing.”

CAIR, meanwhile, is listed among the Palestine Committee’s own entities. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is included on a committee roster and participated in at least one significant Palestine Committee meeting.

Other groups attracted law enforcement scrutiny due to their Muslim Brotherhood ties. The International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), for example, emerged from a 1977 meeting of Muslim Brotherhood luminaries from the U.S., Europe and the Middle East, according to Growth of Islamic Thought in North America: Focus on Ism’ail Raji al Faruqi, written by Muhammad Shafiq, IIIT chair of Interfaith Studies at Nazareth College in Rochester, N.Y.

A 1988 FBI report, obtained by the Investigative Project through a Freedom of Information Act request, identifies ISNA, NAIT and IIIT officials as “members and leaders of the Ikhwan [Brotherhood].”

The FBI document summarizes an interview with an unnamed source who notes that “all Muslim organizations founded under the direction of the IIIT leadership have been organized … in ‘the Ikhwan model,'” with the aim of recruiting support for an Islamic revolution in the U.S.

“… [H]istoricaIIy members of the MSA and subsequently NAIT, ISNA and the IIIT have been IKHWAN members,” the FBI document says.

In sum, FBI investigations and internal Muslim Brotherhood documents establish that, despite Sethi’s assertion to the contrary, there is ample evidence linking ISNA, NAIT and CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood.

His dismissal of the explanatory memo is similarly misguided.

Its author, Mohamed Akram, played a prominent role on the Palestine Committee, identified in an internal 1991 document as the Central Committee secretary. He sat on the group’s “Central Committee” with Hamas political leader Mousa abu Marzook.

Akram’s name also appears immediately following Marzook’s name on the Palestine Committee’s internal telephone. In 1990, Akram reported on projects for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s board of directors known as the Majlis al-Shura. The Shura councils in various countries all “report directly to the IMB [international Muslim Brotherhood]’s leadership,” a 2010 Department of Justice affidavit filed in a deportation case said.

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood maintains supporters in the United States. The IPT documented the connections between old Palestine Committee entities and the anti-Israel group American Muslims for Palestine.

And members of Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFJ) and Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights (EADHR) openly display their Brotherhood loyalties on Facebook. EAFJ founding board member Hani Elkadi posted a cartoon of a man holding a sign with the Brotherhood logo and the words which translate to, “I am [Muslim] Brotherhood and I’m not threatened.”

Memo’s Ambitions Weren’t New

Sethi is not the first to try to discredit the explanatory memo., The Bridge Initiative, an arm of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, argued a year ago that the document was merely “one man’s utopian vision.”

“If it occupied a central place in a Muslim movement to take over America, one would think his supporters would have taken up his idea and spread it in popular and academic circles. But that’s not so,” the Bridge Initiative Team wrote.

It’s a sweeping assertion. And it’s not true. The Brotherhood has a multi-generational plan for establishing a global Islamic state. Its U.S.-based followers have repeatedly detailed their ideas for making it so.

The 1988 FBI FOIA document describes a “six phase … plan to institute Islamic Revolution in the United States” to be executed in part by the IIIT.

The scheme was rooted in a 1983 book called “The Muslim Brotherhood.” Like the “Explanatory Memorandum,” the book emphasizes institution building and Muslim evangelization (dawah) as a prelude for jihad.

“We want to make the whole world bow before the word of Allah, author Saeed Hawwa wrote. “The command of Allah is: ‘And fight with them till no mischief remains, and the religion is all for Allah.'”

Coincidentally, Akram mentions “six elements” of a general strategic plan adopted by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura council in 1987 in the “Explanatory Memorandum.” The memorandum likewise aimed to unify and direct Muslim efforts to present Islam as a “civilization alternative.”

IIIT publications still denigrate Western civilization in the name of Islam.

The “problems and challenges faced by Western civilization in the contemporary era no longer find solutions on the social and economic levels of Western civilization,” Adel Husein wrote in a 2013 IIIT paper. He suggests that Islam offers the solution: “Great revolutions are usually fueled by a solid doctrine, and Islam, in particular, embodies such a doctrine.”

Officials with other American Islamist groups advocate ideas similar to Akram’s.

Shamim Siddiqi, a past dawah director for the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) similarly offered Islam as the solution. (Siddiqi remains recommended reading for ICNA members.)

In his 1989 book, The Methodology of Dawah, Siddiqi argues that Islam should be made “dominant in the USA” through the work of Muslim organizations. Muslims should help Americans view Islam as “an alternate way of life” for the problems of the day, Siddiqi wrote in his 1996 book, The Revival. Evangelizing the American intelligentsia will result in a “demand for an Islamic society and state,” he wrote.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal is a global Islamic State, one that includes the United States. FBI agents have interviewed people with direct knowledge of those efforts and seized internal documents of a network engaged in the slow work of realizing that dream.

Those who dismiss the explanatory memorandum as one man’s fantasy either never bothered to look for corroborating evidence, or they know better and hope to fool the American people.

Also see:

A Last, Desperate Plea to Excuse Hamas Support

hamas-pleaIPT NewsJanuary 12, 2017:

As President Obama’s tenure reaches its final days, Islamists in the United States are waging a furious lobbying campaign aimed at securing the freedom of five men convicted of illegally routing millions of dollars to Hamas.

An open campaign urges the president to pardon five former officials from the defunct, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), casting them as victims of “anti-Muslim hysteria” triggered by the 9/11 attacks. In 2008, a jury convicted the five – Shukri Abu Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammed El-Mezain, Abdulrahman Odeh and Mufid Abdulqader – of using a network of Palestinian charities controlled by Hamas to funneling money to the terrorist group.

It is not clear whether the requests to pardon the five, or to commute their sentences and release them from prison, is being considered seriously. Obama’s pardons thus far involved somewhat less serious crimes including fraud, embezzlement and non-violent drug offenses.

But advocates are pushing social media campaigns and online petitions aimed at securing a pardon, or, short of that, a commutation of the five men’s sentences to set them free. The campaign also has enlisted support from at least one member of Congress.

Left unspoken is an undeniable truth behind the pardon/commutation campaign, and behind any ongoing defense of the Holy Land Foundation: Advocates do not believe Hamas support is wrong.

The Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA) is leading the charge, supported by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and pro-Palestinian groups.

CAIR’s appeal provided a White House switchboard number for supporters to call and request commutations. Some sites even include contact information for key members of Congress, urging supporters to emphasize the “cruelly disproportionate” length of sentences – from a low of 15 years for El-Mezain, to 65-year terms for Baker and Elashi.

CAIR’s Arizona director Imraan Siddiqi described the prosecution as “a political lynching of charity workers … Its effects still haunt American Muslims.”

After reviewing the entire record in 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals saw it quite differently.

Pleas from the MLFA and Siddiqi ignore the exhibits – many of them internal HLF and related documents – showing the family ties between some defendants and Hamas leaders, a reliance on Hamas officials to speak at HLF fundraisers along with other, consistent pro-Hamas messages.

In addition, records show, HLF (formerly known as the Occupied Land Fund) was part of a network called the “Palestine Committee” in the United States. That committee answered to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s mandate that global chapters create “Palestine Committees” in their home countries. Their task was “to support Hamas from abroad,” the Fifth Circuit noted in upholding the convictions and sentences. In the United States, that task fell in part to Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who helped create HLF and two other branches – a propaganda wing known as the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and a think-tank called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR).

CAIR was added to the Palestine Committee after its 1994 founding.

“The evidence showed that the long-standing connection between HLF and Hamas began in the late 1980s when HLF arose as a fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee …” the appeals court ruling said. “This fact was notably evident from the … [internal Palestine Committee] documents, which showed that HLF was created along with the IAP.” In addition, Palestine Committee bylaws “specifically recognized HLF as ‘the official organization for fundraising.'”

HLF apologists claim the group was merely interested in helping needy widows and orphans. But, the court pointed out, the orphans included Yehia Ayyash’s children. Ayyash was Hamas’s top bomb maker, nicknamed “The Engineer,” before being killed by Israel.

“An audio tape from 1996 that was seized from HLF’s offices contained songs praising Hamas and discussions of suicide bombers as heroes,” the ruling said.

“We believe that a jury could not help but infer from the above evidence that the defendants had a close association with Hamas and that HLF acted to fund Hamas both before and after Hamas’s designation as a terrorist organization.”

Still, CAIR’s Texas chapter called the five convicted HLF officials “humanitarians,” and described their imprisonment as “an immense wrong.” It cited defense attorney Nancy Hollander’s claim that there was no evidence showing her client, HLF executive director Shukri Abu Baker, breaking the law. “Not a word from his lips that he hated Jews. Not a word from his lips that he supported Hamas. These were fictions,” Hollander said.

1933That cannot be said for Mufid Abdulqader, who performed and acted in a singing troupe that helped raise money for HLF at IAP events. In this video, admitted into evidence during the 2008 trial, he is shown wearing camouflage and a kaffiyeh as he sings, “I am Hamas, O dear ones … I swear to wipe out the name of the Zionist. And protect my land, Palestine.” Then, he pretends to strangle an actor portraying an Israeli.

Hollander failed to mention that Baker ran HLF and was responsible for who spoke and what was said at its fundraisers. Those events routinely featured Hamas leaders and activists. She also neglected to mention her client’s participation in a secret 1993 Philadelphia gathering of Hamas members and supporters who schemed about how to “derail” the U.S.-brokered Oslo peace accord without coming off looking like terror supporters.

It was Baker who set a key ground rule for the talks, which were secretly recorded and translated by the FBI: No one should mention Hamas by name, he instructed. Instead, call it “Sister Samah,” which is Hamas spelled backward.

The gathering, Baker said, was “a joint workshop between the Holy Land Foundation and the IAP.” Participants should not mention Hamas by name.

Hollander then compared the HLF case – brought against a handful of men with documented and recorded connections to Hamas – to the mass internment of 117,000 Japanese American men, women and children during World War II.

The current campaign would settle for a sentencing commutation, essentially freeing the men on time served. The sentences, from 15 to 65 years in prison, were overly harsh, advocates say.

But the Fifth Circuit had considered this, too, rejecting defense department arguments. Its ruling noted that the probation office’s presentence recommendations included significant terrorism enhancements because HLF gave money to Hamas “in order to rid Palestine of the Jewish people through violent jihad, HAMAS’ mission.”

It added that “the trial was replete with evidence to satisfy application of the terrorism enhancement because of the defendants’ intent to support Hamas. The Hamas charter clearly delineated the goal of meeting the Palestinian/Israeli conflict with violent jihad and the rejection of peace efforts and compromise solutions. The defendants knew that they were supporting Hamas, as there was voluminous evidence showing their close ties to the Hamas movement.”

Those claiming the HLF defendants suffered an injustice, or that they somehow deserve relief, lie about this record or pretend it does not exist. To acknowledge reality is to shatter their own argument, or to come clean about their true feelings about Hamas terrorism. They know that’s a losing hand. It’s something Shukri Abu Baker talked about in that 1993 Philadelphia meeting.

They need to mislead people if they are going to be successful, Baker said.

“War is deception,” he said. “Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way … Deceive your enemy.”

Muslim Brotherhood Front Organizations, U.S. and Canada

Gatestone Institute, by Thomas Quiggin, January 31, 2017:

  • The 2008 Holy Land Relief terrorism funding criminal trial resulted in multiple convictions and was touted as the one of the largest terrorism financing trials in American history. Expectations were high that the 2008 trial would be followed by further trials involving the listed unindicted co-conspirators such as CAIR USA and the Islamic Society of North America.
  • However, with the appointment of Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General in 2009, all further actions on this file appear to have been frozen. Holder would later speak at a conference supporting one of the unindicted co-conspirators.
  • It is not clear if the ongoing criminal investigation focuses only on those individuals leading IRFAN at the time of its delisting as a charity and listing as a terrorism entity, or if the investigation also includes those who helped found IRFAN. This may be an important distinction, as the Canada Revenue Agency stated that IRFAN was deliberately created and designed to circumvent Canadian terrorism-funding rules.
  • It appears possible that the Trump Administration will crack down on Islamist extremist groups in the USA. This would likely have a spill-over effect into Canada and Europe, though greater attention to border security and issues of funding terrorism.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz last week submitted legislation to designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Organization.

Cruz (R-TX) earlier had a bill in the Senate which would not only ban the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. but also three of its front groups: Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) USA, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). These American-based front groups have corresponding chapters or organizations in Canada as well.

Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and their members have an ongoing problem with criminal activity, terrorism-funding activities and overall negative relations with legal authorities. These problems range from being listed as terrorist groups, being charged for weapons possession and an even an arrest for alleged sexual charges involving a 12-year-old girl. Several of the charges are consistent with the extremist nature of the Muslim Brotherhood itself, given its commitment to violent political change. Both criminal investigations and terrorism listings in North America, for instance, have been directly related to terrorism funding for Hamas, itself a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its founder, Hassan al-Banna.

The future is also uncertain for a variety of groups and individuals related to the criminal trials surrounding the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, formerly known as the Occupied Land Fund. The 2008 criminal trial resulted in multiple convictions and was touted as the one of the largest terrorism financing trials in American history. Expectations were high that the 2008 trial would be followed by further trials involving the listed unindicted co-conspirators such as CAIR USA and the Islamic Society of North America. However, with the appointment of Eric Holder as the Attorney General of the United States in 2009, all further actions on this file appear to have been frozen. Holder would later speak at a conference supporting one of the unindicted co-conspirators. It is not yet clear if the next U.S. Attorney General will direct that the files be re-activated.

CAIR USA has been repeatedly identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It was listed as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization and as a terrorism entity by the United Arab Emirates in 2014. CAIR USA employees and former employees have a rather dubious history of criminal activity. Among those CAIR USA employees charged with criminal offences or deported have been Randall Ismail Royer (weapons and explosive charges), Bassam Khafagi (bank and visa fraud), Ghassan Elashi (terrorism financing of Hamas), and Nabil Sadoun (deported for ties to terrorist groups). Other members and fund-raisers for CAIR USA have also been charged.

In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation (Project Sapphire) into the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) continues. IRFAN was one of four Muslim Brotherhood front groups identified during testimony to the Canadian Senate in 2015. The others were Islamic Relief Canada, the Muslim Association of Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR CAN. CAIR CAN, according to the U.S. State Department and a multiplicity of other sources, is the Canadian chapter of CAIR USA.

IRFAN had its charitable status revoked for funding terrorism in 2011 and was subsequently listed as a terrorism entity by the Government of Canada in 2014. It is not clear if the ongoing criminal investigation focuses only on those individuals leading IRFAN at the time of its delisting as a charity and listing as a terrorism entity, or if the investigation also includes those who helped found IRFAN. This may be an important distinction, as the Canada Revenue Agency stated that IRFAN was deliberately created and designed to circumvent Canadian terrorism-funding rules.

Another of the four front groups, the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), also made the news in 2015. At that point, it was alleged that IRFAN continued to received funding from the Muslim Association of Canada even after IRFAN had its charitable status revoked for funding terrorism in 2011. This information came from an RCMP search warrant that was used to raid IRFAN premises in Mississauga and Montreal. In addition to funding issues, the MAC and IRFAN are connected to each other through common board members and their association to Hamas. IRFAN was funding Hamas and the MAC is one of only two organizations outside of Egypt that openly states it is a Muslim Brotherhood adherent group.

The Islamic Society of North America (Canadian Chapter) has also had its problems. Along with a variety of internal fraud issues, the ISNA Development Fund had the charitable status of its “Development Fund” revoked for terrorism funding. The terrorism-funding money in question was sent to the Relief Organization for Kashmiri Muslims (ROKM) with the ultimate aim of supporting Jamaat-e-Islami, widely known as the Muslim Brotherhood’s sister group in south Asia.

The Muslim Student Association

Another group, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) of the United States and Canada was established in January 1963 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign campus. Its creation was the result of Saudi-backed efforts to create a network of international Islamic organizations in order to spread its Wahhabist ideology. It was essentially “an arm of the Saudi-funded, Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Muslim World League.”

The following individuals have all been identified as members of the MSA at a variety universities in Canada. They have all been either charged with terrorism offences or died as suicide bombers at the behest of ISIS:

  • Ahmed Sayed Khadr from the University of Ottawa. Khadr was killed on October 2, 2003, along with al-Qaeda and Taliban members, in a shootout by Pakistani security forces near the Afghanistan border. An al-Qaeda website profiling “120 Martyrs of Afghanistan” described him as a leader in Bin Laden’s organization and praised him for “tossing his little child [Omar] in the furnace of the battle.”
  • Chiheb Esseghaier was convicted in 2015 for his role in the attempted bombing of a cross-border VIA Rail train.
  • Khadar Khalib has been charged with terrorism-related offenses and is believed to have killed in Syria while fighting for ISIS.
  • Awso Peshdary, born in Ottawa, was arrested in February 2015 as part of operation “Project Servant” by the RCMP Integrated National Security Enforcement Team. He was charged with participation in the activity of a terrorist group.
  • John “Yahya” Maguire was also born in the Ottawa area, but went off to Syria and become infamous for his ISIS recruiting video. He has also been charged with terrorism offences in absentia.
  • Youssef Sakhir, Samir Halilovic and Zakria Habibi are/were from Sherbrooke Quebec, but are now listed as missing and believed to be fighting in Syria.
  • Muhannad al-Farekh, Farid Imam and Maiwand Yar have all had charges laid against them for terrorism-related offences. Their whereabouts are unknown, but they may be in Pakistan.
  • Calgary suicide bomber Salma Ashrafi was the President of his Muslim Student Association before dying in a suicide bombing in Iraq.

Chiheb Battikh and the Muslim Association of Canada

In December 2012, Chiheb Battikh of Montreal attempted to kidnap the son of a billionaire and hold him for ransom. The Tunisian-Canadian was identified by the Tunis Tribune as being “close to Ennahda” or the Muslim Brotherhood. The French language Journal de Montréal did a five-page story on him following his conviction. Among the issues raised by the paper was Battikh’s long time position on the board of directors for the Muslim Association of Canada as well as his position as the director of education for them. The issue of whether the kidnapping was intended to help fund the new Canadian Institute of Islamic Civilization was raised as well. Battikh had been in charge of that fundraising effort and the project had been in trouble.

The Trump Administration

Some of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s advisors have strong views on the Muslim Brotherhood. Included among these are Walid Phares, who favors banning the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. Other advisors include Frank Gaffney, and Pieter “Pete” Hoekstra, both of whom are well acquainted with Muslim Brotherhood activities

Outlook

A variety of Muslim Brotherhood front groups have drawn attention to themselves through terrorism funding and other forms of alleged criminal behavior. CAIR USA (and others) have also been involved in lawfare — suing critics to silence them. Altogether, this activity and their own allegedly criminal actions have drawn greater attention to them and increased, rather than decreased, the amount of research done on them. With the rising, often Islamist-inspired, violence in Europe, the Middle East and South East Asia, more attention will be drawn to the sources of the extremism that are producing and funding terrorism.

It appears possible that a Trump Administration will crack down on Islamist extremist groups in the USA. It also appears probable that this will have a spill-over effect into Canada and Europe though greater attention to border security and issues of funding terrorism. These groups, which have already drawn attention to themselves, may start feeling the heat sooner rather than later.

Also see:

Because Nothing Says ‘I CAIR’ Like a Pardon

cair-pleaNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, January 18, 2017:

Thinking about what else could happen in the next 48 hours?

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that CAIR (the Council on America-Islamic Relations) is leading a furious lobbying campaign by Islamists in the U.S. to persuade President Obama to free the five Hamas operatives convicted in the Holy Land Foundation case.

Isn’t that rich?

The HLF prosecution is the most significant terrorism financing case the Justice Department has ever done. Hamas, a designated terrorist organization under federal law, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the HLF case, the government proved not only that leading Islamist organizations in America were helping the Brotherhood transmit millions of dollars overseas to Hamas; prosecutors further demonstrated – using the Brotherhood’s own internal memoranda – that the Brotherhood saw its mission in the United States as “a grand jihad to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within.”

In this grand jihad, the Brotherhood was in cahoots with these leading Islamist organizations, many of which had roots in the Brotherhood. One of these was … CAIR.

Indeed, Hamas and Brotherhood activists created CAIR in 1993-94 because they realized they needed an organization with legal know-how and media polish to advance the Islamist agenda. Having studied the United States (in a way that we resist studying radical Islam), they also realized that if they labeled their new creation a Muslim “civil rights” organization, the media would play along – CAIR would be lauded as a social justice warrior rather than revealed as a jihadist mouthpiece.

So CAIR was shown to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case. After the convictions of the five HLF officials in 2008, however, the incoming Obama administration opted against prosecuting CAIR and the other Islamist organizations that had assisted the conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization. In fact, early in his administration, Obama proclaimed his commitment “to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”

As I explained at the time, zakat is often misleadingly translated as “charitable giving” by commentators and government officials. Actually, it is the fortification of the ummah (the notional worldwide Muslim community). Under classic sharia, zakat may only be contributed to Muslims. There are eight categories of permissible zakat recipients; one is Muslims who are fighting in jihad operations. (See the ancient sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller, sec. h8.17: “Zakat: The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster[.]”)

I assume the president was simply uninformed about Islamic law – although this is Obama we’re talking about, so maybe it’s that he figures he knows more about how it should be construed than anyone on earth, including those who’ve spent their lives immersed in it. But Islamists would interpret his stated commitment to “ensure that they can fulfill zakat” as ensuring that they could do what the HLF defendants were convicted of doing: providing material support to terrorists. To Islamists, the five HLF convicts have been stuck serving between 15- and 65-year prison sentences for something they believe Obama has said should not be a crime in the first place.

Following the HLF convictions, it was reported that the Obama Justice Department had blocked prosecutions against a top CAIR official and leaders of other Brotherhood-tied organizations.

And now CAIR is pushing for the HLF defendants to be released from their very lengthy sentences. The Islamists’ narrative, as the Investigative Project explains, is that these Hamas operatives are really victims of, yes, “anti-Muslim hysteria.”

It’s a shrewd campaign. The Obama administration has been wholesale onboard the anti-anti-jihad bandwagon since day-one, and it often spouts the anti-Muslim hysteria party line. The administration has championed the Muslim Brotherhood; worked with Islamist governments to restrict American free speech rights (regarding criticism of Islam); armed and trained militias in Libya and Syria that were threaded with jihadists; and colluded with the Islamist government of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan – a Muslim Brotherhood backer who is among the world’s leading supporters of Hamas. As illustrated by the administration’s shameful orchestration last month of an anti-Israel resolution at the U.N. Security Council, Obama is sympathetic to the hard left’s view that Palestinian terrorists are not really terrorists – they are members of “political organizations” whose regrettable brutality is best understood as “resistance” to “occupation.”

If he were to release the Hamas convicts from the HLF case, Obama would (again) be a hero to both Islamists and leftists. He would simultaneously enrage national-security conservatives in the United States and the Israeli government.

In other words, he’d be doing what he’s done for eight years.

Also see:

A Last, Desperate Plea to Excuse Hamas Support

cair-plea

IPT News
January 12, 2017

As President Obama’s tenure reaches its final days, Islamists in the United States are waging a furious lobbying campaign aimed at securing the freedom of five men convicted of illegally routing millions of dollars to Hamas.

An open campaign urges the president to pardon five former officials from the defunct, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), casting them as victims of “anti-Muslim hysteria” triggered by the 9/11 attacks. In 2008, a jury convicted the five – Shukri Abu Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammed El-Mezain, Abdulrahman Odeh and Mufid Abdulqader – of using a network of Palestinian charities controlled by Hamas to funneling money to the terrorist group.

It is not clear whether the requests to pardon the five, or to commute their sentences and release them from prison, is being considered seriously. Obama’s pardons thus far involved somewhat less serious crimes including fraud, embezzlement and non-violent drug offenses.

But advocates are pushing social media campaigns and online petitions aimed at securing a pardon, or, short of that, a commutation of the five men’s sentences to set them free. The campaign also has enlisted support from at least one member of Congress.

Left unspoken is an undeniable truth behind the pardon/commutation campaign, and behind any ongoing defense of the Holy Land Foundation: Advocates do not believe Hamas support is wrong.

The Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA) is leading the charge, supported by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and pro-Palestinian groups.

CAIR’s appeal provided a White House switchboard number for supporters to call and request commutations. Some sites even include contact information for key members of Congress, urging supporters to emphasize the “cruelly disproportionate” length of sentences – from a low of 15 years for El-Mezain, to 65-year terms for Baker and Elashi.

CAIR’s Arizona director Imraan Siddiqui described the prosecution as “a political lynching of charity workers … Its effects still haunt American Muslims.”

After reviewing the entire record in 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals saw it quite differently.

Pleas from the MLFA and Siddiqi ignore the exhibits – many of them internal HLF and related documents – showing the family ties between some defendants and Hamas leaders, a reliance on Hamas officials to speak at HLF fundraisers along with other, consistent pro-Hamas messages.

In addition, records show, HLF (formerly known as the Occupied Land Fund) was part of a network called the “Palestine Committee” in the United States. That committee answered to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s mandate that global chapters create “Palestine Committees” in their home countries. Their task was “to support Hamas from abroad,” the Fifth Circuit noted in upholding the convictions and sentences. In the United States, that task fell in part to Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who helped create HLF and two other branches – a propaganda wing known as the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and a think-tank called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR).

CAIR was added to the Palestine Committee after its 1994 founding.

“The evidence showed that the long-standing connection between HLF and Hamas began in the late 1980s when HLF arose as a fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee …” the appeals court ruling said. “This fact was notably evident from the … [internal Palestine Committee] documents, which showed that HLF was created along with the IAP.” In addition, Palestine Committee bylaws “specifically recognized HLF as ‘the official organization for fundraising.'”

HLF apologists claim the group was merely interested in helping needy widows and orphans. But, the court pointed out, the orphans included Yehia Ayyash’s children. Ayyash was Hamas’s top bomb maker, nicknamed “The Engineer,” before being killed by Israel.

“An audio tape from 1996 that was seized from HLF’s offices contained songs praising Hamas and discussions of suicide bombers as heroes,” the ruling said.

“We believe that a jury could not help but infer from the above evidence that the defendants had a close association with Hamas and that HLF acted to fund Hamas both before and after Hamas’s designation as a terrorist organization.”

Still, CAIR’s Texas chapter called the five convicted HLF officials “humanitarians,” and described their imprisonment as “an immense wrong.” It cited defense attorney Nancy Hollander’s claim that there was no evidence showing her client, HLF executive director Shukri Abu Baker, breaking the law. “Not a word from his lips that he hated Jews. Not a word from his lips that he supported Hamas. These were fictions,” Hollander said.

That cannot be said for Mufid Abdulqader, who performed and acted in a singing troupe that helped raise money for HLF at IAP events. In this video, admitted into evidence during the 2008 trial, he is shown wearing camouflage and a kaffiyeh as he sings, “I am Hamas, O dear ones … I swear to wipe out the name of the Zionist. And protect my land, Palestine.” Then, he pretends to strangle an actor portraying an Israeli.

Hollander failed to mention that Baker ran HLF and was responsible for who spoke and what was said at its fundraisers. Those events routinely featured Hamas leaders and activists. She also neglected to mention her client’s participation in a secret 1993 Philadelphia gathering of Hamas members and supporters who schemed about how to “derail” the U.S.-brokered Oslo peace accord without coming off looking like terror supporters.

It was Baker who set a key ground rule for the talks, which were secretly recorded and translated by the FBI: No one should mention Hamas by name, he instructed. Instead, call it “Sister Samah,” which is Hamas spelled backward.

The gathering, Baker said, was “a joint workshop between the Holy Land Foundation and the IAP.” Participants should not mention Hamas by name.

Hollander then compared the HLF case – brought against a handful of men with documented and recorded connections to Hamas – to the mass internment of 117,000 Japanese American men, women and children during World War II.

The current campaign would settle for a sentencing commutation, essentially freeing the men on time served. The sentences, from 15 to 65 years in prison, were overly harsh, advocates say.

But the Fifth Circuit had considered this, too, rejecting defense department arguments. Its ruling noted that the probation office’s presentence recommendations included significant terrorism enhancements because HLF gave money to Hamas “in order to rid Palestine of the Jewish people through violent jihad, HAMAS’ mission.”

It added that “the trial was replete with evidence to satisfy application of the terrorism enhancement because of the defendants’ intent to support Hamas. The Hamas charter clearly delineated the goal of meeting the Palestinian/Israeli conflict with violent jihad and the rejection of peace efforts and compromise solutions. The defendants knew that they were supporting Hamas, as there was voluminous evidence showing their close ties to the Hamas movement.”

Those claiming the HLF defendants suffered an injustice, or that they somehow deserve relief, lie about this record or pretend it does not exist. To acknowledge reality is to shatter their own argument, or to come clean about their true feelings about Hamas terrorism. They know that’s a losing hand. It’s something Shukri Abu Baker talked about in that 1993 Philadelphia meeting.

They need to mislead people if they are going to be successful, Baker said.

“War is deception,” he said. “Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way … Deceive your enemy.”

IPT Exclusive: In Private Fundraiser, Ellison Blasted Israeli Influence Over U.S. Policy

ellison2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
November 29, 2016

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s announcement earlier this month that he wants to be the Democratic National Committee’s next chairman drew quick support from several key lawmakers, including Jewish senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders.

Ellison backers also have defended him against claims he may hold anti-Semitic views in addition to being anti-Israel. A column in Israel’s liberal daily Haaretz quotes two rabbis praising Ellison, D-Minn., as “the best of our constitutional democracy and the best of America” and “an extraordinary leader. Anyone who would associate him with any kind of hatred hasn’t met him and certainly hasn’t worked with him.”

A 2010 audio of Ellison speaking at a private fundraiser obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism calls such praise into question. In a fairly intimate setting, Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

The fundraiser for Ellison’s re-election campaign was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society (MAS) who was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel in 2007 after an exclusive IPT videotape showed him praising Palestinians for choosing the “the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Omeish was a candidate for Virginia’s general assembly the previous year, and Ellison spoke at a fundraiser for that losing effort.

In his 2010 remarks, he described Omeish as “my beloved brother and I love you and you are the best and your family is so beautiful and again, you know, you put it out there. You ran. And I hope you run again.”

Also present at the fundraiser was Nihad Awad, a co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America known as the Palestine Committee.

Ellison’s comments about Israeli political influence do not appear to be a poor choice of words. A year earlier, as conflict raged between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Ellison told Al Jazeera that the people who have a strong sympathy for the Israeli position dominate the conversation. It is really not politically safe to say there have been two sides to this.”

A month later, Ellison told the BBC that outreach to Hamas was not feasible for a member of Congress – not because it is a terrorist organization with an anti-Semitic charter demanding Israel’s destruction – but because it is too politically risky.

“What I can tell you now is that the constellation of political forces in the United States at this moment would make a member of Congress who has reached out directly to Hamas spend all their time defending that decision and would not be able to deal with other critical issues that need to be focused on. So for example if I were to make a move like that I wouldn’t be able to focus my attention on the humanitarian issue. I’d have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve goals that I have.”

Just after the 2009 Gaza war, Ellison was among 22 House members to vote “present” rather than take a stand on a nonbinding House resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Ellison claimed he was “torn” on the issue because it “barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Ellison long has demanded that Israel open its borders to Gaza, arguing that economic aid and development would help ease tensions and resulting violence. In 2010, he authored a letter signed by 53 House colleagues which called on President Obama to pressure Israel into opening the border.

Ellison described the blockade as “collective punishment” on Gaza residents.

He re-upped the argument in a 2014 Washington Post oped which was written during new conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hamas terrorists provoked the war by kidnapping and murdering three teenagers and by launching thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian areas.

But Ellison argued that peace would come with economic relief in Gaza and said an end to the blockade should be part of any ceasefire.

“The status quo for ordinary Gazans is a continuation of no jobs and no freedom,” he wrote. “This is not an attractive future. Gazans want and deserve the dignity of economic opportunity and freedom to move.”

The restrictions on imports to Gaza were aimed at curbing the flow of materials sent to Hamas to build rockets, bombs and other tools for terrorism. Israel allows humanitarian aid into the territory. But Hamas continues to divert millions of dollars in aid and supplies which could be used to improve daily life in order to dig more attack tunnels and restock its terrorist arsenal.

While he also said that “Hamas must give up its rockets and other weapons” to achieve peace, Ellison was one of only eight House members to vote against increasing funding for Israel to provide added funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program. Even though it successfully intercepted dozens of Hamas rockets, especially those aimed at population centers, Ellison said the proposal was no good because “the US government needs to be prioritizing a ceasefire between the two sides.”

These statements and countless others should concern DNC officials before choosing a leader early next year. Any chairperson’s job will include efforts to preserve and maintain the party’s support from American Jews. Exit polling indicates an estimated 71 percent of Jewish voters supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Jewish leaders either don’t know the extent of Ellison’s relationship with Islamist groups like CAIR, or of his consistent criticism of Israeli actions, especially in response to Hamas terror, or they do not care. Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League’s chief executive, issued a statement last week saying Ellison “is a man of good character” and “an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.”

As we have shown, he’s also a man who believes Jewish interests disproportionately influence American foreign policy.

During last summer’s national convention, Ellison and other delegates supporting Sanders wanted the Democratic Party platform to delete a description of Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” and wanted to gut language opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement targeting the Jewish state.

Those efforts were pushed back, but should have a far stronger position under an Ellison-run DNC.

Support for Terror Tied

In addition to seeing Israel as controlling government policy, Ellison has supported prominent Islamists targeted for their direct support for Palestinian terrorist organizations.

During a 2008 radio interview, Ellison praised Sami Al-Arian. Years earlier, evidence admitted into a federal court showed Al-Arian served on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura council, in essence, its board of directors. Despite that fact, Ellison said he wished “that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace, have justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case,” saying he found “some things about his case that I think raise legitimate questions.”

Similarly, Ellison expressed frustration at the 2007 terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five former officials. The charity, shut down by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001, funneled millions of dollars to Hamas through a network of Palestinian charities the terrorist group controlled.

But after a trial ended with a hung jury on most counts, Ellison blasted the case as “persecution” during remarks at a CAIR fundraising banquet in Anaheim. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, in part due to internal Palestine Committee documents showing CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. network from the moment of its 1994 inception.

“And the worst of it was not that these people’s lives were disrupted, their reputations were tarnished,” Ellison said. “The worst of it was that [300] other organizations were tossed in to the mix of it all as they were listed as unindicted co-conspirators. No evidence to be found that they had done anything. So here is what we have today. 300 reputable civil rights organizations, including CAIR, put on a list they never should have been put on in a case where they had been thoroughly exonerated. It’s time to call an end to wasting taxpayer money in this manner. There have been other prosecutions for Muslim charities and we’ve come up with nothing at all when it comes to convictions in these cases. It’s time for us to call a stop to this selective prosecution. It’s time to say that our justice system and our prosecutors and our police officers are here to investigate crime for the sake of public safety, not to pursue a political agenda.”

The Holy Land defendants were retried in 2008, with jurors convicting the defendantson all counts. Ellison did not comment.

In 2009, Ellison made the pilgrimage to Mecca known as the Hajj. His travels were financed by the Muslim American Society (MAS), which insiders have acknowledged is the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt arm in the United States.

Little Tolerance For Dissenting Views

When it comes to Muslims who may not share the Islamist ideology of MAS, CAIR and others, Ellison is quick tempered and hostile.

He walked out of a 2009 Capitol Hill panel discussion with Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, after falsely accusing Jasser of giving “people license for bigotry,” and “to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating.”

Jasser’s “sin” was to criticize the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and advocate for “a separation between mosque and state.”

Similarly, Ellison dramatically lashed out during a 2011 House hearing on Islamic radicalization. Even though the panel included a Muslim father of an American who became a terrorist, Ellison fought back tears talking about a Muslim first responder killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Simply holding the hearing was tantamount to assigning blame for a terrorist’s “violent actions to the entire community,” he said, “you assign collective blame to the entire group.”

Ellison has spoken at at least a dozen CAIR fundraising events since 2006, records show. In addition, the IPT has learned that Ellison privately consults with CAIR for talking points and suggestions about pending actions and hearings before the House.

It’s little wonder that, in 2014, CAIR honored Ellison with its “Muslim of the Year” award.

Jasser recently devoted his weekly podcast to Ellison’s DNC candidacy. “A DNC run by a Congressman Ellison, I think, will become very dangerous,” Jasser said. That’s in part due to Ellison’s support for Saudi Arabia, despite that country’s strict Wahhabi ideology and its prominent role financing the spread of a radical interpretation of Islam globally. Ellison also is a frequent fundraiser for CAIR and is supportive of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an umbrella group for 57 majority-Muslim nations which wants to see global blasphemy laws outlawing criticism of religion.

Ellison “racializes” Islam, Jasser said, as part of a broader reliance on identity politics. “Islam is not a race. It’s an idea. An idea, by the way, that includes ideas loathe to the Democratic Party” such as severe restrictions on women and the death penalty for homosexuality. But by making criticism of Islam, or of those who want to apply it politically, critics can be dismissed as bigots.

He recounted his 2009 debate with Ellison and the 2011 radicalization hearing in which Ellison engaged in “character assassination of us as witnesses. And the fact that we were Muslim did not seem to matter to him.”

That is one point on which Jasser and Ellison agree. Two weeks after the hearing, Ellison spoke at a University of Michigan-Dearborn event sponsored by the school’s Muslim Students Association (MSA) chapter. Like CAIR, MAS and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the MSA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Internal records show the Brotherhood acknowledges the connection.

Ellison dismissed Jasser, who advocates reform and opposes mixing his faith with government policy, and Abdirizak Bihi, the uncle of a radicalized Somali American from the Minneapolis area who died after joining the al-Shabaab terrorist group, as “some Muslim guys who, you know, who basically are angry at their community to go say a bunch of anecdotal things about … how good they are and how bad we are.”

Ellison’s record is clear. He raises money for some of the country’s most deceptive Islamist groups and works with them to advance their causes. He singles out Israel for criticism and believes the Jewish state enjoys disproportionate control over American foreign policy.

He wants to lead one of America’s two major political parties.

Also see:

‘Whatever It Takes’ Guest John Guandolo: Rip Out Terror-Related Islamic Groups Operating in U.S., Put Their Leaders in Jail

whatever-it-takes-john_gaundalno-640x480

Breitbart, by Neil McCabe, November 3, 2016:

“One is to deal with immigration and Two is to rip the Islamic movement up from roots in the United States,” said the former Marine officer, who lead a special operations team operating in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Guandolo said he recommends a five-year freeze on Muslim immigration just to get a handle on the situation.

There are already jihadists coming into the country in violation of the law, which is not being enforced, he said.

Schilling told the former Marine officer and combat diver that the fear of being called racist or politically incorrect is enough for people to keep quiet about the dangerous things they see and hear, such as in the San Bernardino shootings, when the neighbors were too scared to tell someone what was about to go down.

“This is a war of narratives that is actually getting people killed,” he said.

“That to me above all is the scary part,” Schilling said.

Guandolo said that our public officials know all  they need to know, but they too are afraid–and they should resign.

As for the organizations supporting Islamic terrorism, the work is already done, all we need to do is go to court, he said.

“We have legal cause right now and evidence–that we already have right now–that has already been gathered over the last 20 years by the FBI and is actually going back to the early 80s, to indict the most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States: The Islamic Society of North America; the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank, The North American Islamic Trust,;the Hamas organization in the United States, CAIR, the Council of American Islamic Relations; the Muslim student organization, The Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council–across the board, we could indict them today” he said.

Guandolo said in 2009, which was the first year of President Barack Obama’s term, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., refused to prosecute Omar Ahmad, the leader and founder of CAIR, for his role in supporting terrorist organizations in connection with the Holy Land Foundation case. “Even though the Department of Justice and the FBI were working towards that.”

In the seven years since Holder froze the case against Ahmad, none of the hundreds of named co-conspirators in that case have been pursued by DOJ, he said.

The Holy Land Foundation was at the time of its November 2001 conviction the largest Islamic charity in the country and it was found guilty of sending more than $12 million to Hamas, he said.

Holder and the DOJ abandoned the case, even after the government found in the bank records of The Islamic Society of North America money transfers directly to Hamas and its leaders, he said. Hamas is a Sunni-Muslim organization of Palestinians that set itself up as a more militant rival to the Palestinian Liberation Organization in opposition to the State of Israel. Hamas is classified by the federal government as a foreign terrorist organization.

“Shutting down these organizations and putting their leaders in jail, or however we want to deal with them, and seizing their property and their money–that would have a huge impact on the network,” he said.

It is not just the private organizations, he said.

Although, the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to the destruction of America culture and civilization and is waging that cultural jihad every day, the Obama administration has become the brotherhood’s partner, said the man who commanded the FBI sniper team that responded to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the liaison between the federal government and the Muslim community with members of the Muslim Brotherhood holding security clearances, so they can participate on advisory boards at the Department of Homeland Security and in intelligence and law enforcement agencies, he said.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, or as it is called in the United States, The Islamic Society of North America, have been given awards by the FBI, Guandolo said.

The partnerships with the federal government are on-going and expanding, he said. “That is just a snippet of the problem–when these people should be in jail, not invited to Iftar dinners at the White House.”

Developing an Effective Counter Radicalization Strategy

1796by Scott Newark
Special to IPT News

August 29, 2016

Western governments appear to have finally accepted the reality that a new front on the Islamist war has opened up and it’s in our own backyards. It is all too easy for al-Qaida, or ISIS, or whatever new Islamist group, to publish propaganda to incite radicalized or radically prone young Muslims living in the West, and to hand them chillingly accurate information to “build bombs in your mother’s kitchen.”

These young recruits are being recruited to kill soldiers, police and civilians in their own countries rather than attempting to travel to join the Islamist slaughter abroad. And while there has been some success in suppressing the capabilities of international Islamist networks and in military action against the ISIS “caliphate,” domestic terrorist attacks throughout the West show that the threat has not gone away or even been diminished. And that means our approach must also evolve.

We must acknowledge that this threat comes from people and groups who have an unyielding belief that their version of Islam calls for the submission of the world to its dictates, and that killing those who oppose or resist this is not only permissible but obligatory..

Equally, while the Islamist ideology may prey on and exploit persons with mental illness, they are yelling Allahu Ahkbar and not “Sigmund Freud” when they detonate the suicide bombs or murder innocent civilians with knives, guns or trucks. The extremist religious motivation is the key to understanding their actions and in developing a strategy to help prevent the radicalization that leads to it.

Second, this “religious” motivation must be acknowledged by our official entities and the larger Muslim community within Western societies who want nothing to do with it and who reject its goals. For them, Islam may be a religion of peace that forbids killing of innocent civilians, but for others, their version of Islam commands it. There are clearly different conclusions being reached, but the good guys and the bad guys are reading from the same book, and acknowledging this fact is essential if we’re going to be successful. Candor, however uncomfortable, is a better long-term strategy than forcing security and law enforcement agencies to twist themselves into pretzels at each new incident to avoid offending anyone.

It is also critical to recognize that the domestic terrorist pool is comprised of people who, through different processes, have been indoctrinated into the Islamist extremist ideology that includes committing murderous acts of terrorism. This must be the starting point of the counter-radicalization strategy. Simply focusing on “de-radicalizing” extremists does nothing to stop someone from heading down that path in the first place. Similarly, limiting intervention to those espousing extremist beliefs and violent intentions assumes an ability to foretell actions that is simply unrealistic. While not all Islamic extremists are terrorists, all Islamist terrorists ascribe to the extremist version of Islam. It only makes sense to start where the terrorism motivation originates.

We also must acknowledge that the Islamist strategy includes establishing a “global Caliphate.” This vision is not limited to the overt savagery wrought on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but also includes the murky Islamist political efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood and its spidery network of seemingly benign organizations. Their intent, in their own words, is “destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” One other quote worth keeping in mind is the official motto of the Muslim Brotherhood which says it all:

“God is our goal, Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes.”

Lest there be anyone who still doubts the existence and clear purpose of this long-term strategy, let me suggest you read the materials in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing case or the compelling 2011 book, The Grand Jihad by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.

It is also important to understand that for the Muslim Brotherhood network of groups, “war is deception.” Lying to the kuffar (non-believers) is fully authorized by the Quran through the doctrine known as taqiyya.

Domestic Islamist inspired terrorism incidents in the West (and elsewhere) are getting worse. What’s more, there is clear evidence that significant numbers of their Western citizens have travelled to the Middle East to pursue murderous Islamist jihad, and increasing numbers of them are finding ways to return “home.”

While some cases have involved people who received training abroad, most of these cases involve radicalization that took place in Western societies including Canada and the United States. That’s a chilling reality that must be acknowledged including determining how it took place and who was involved. That hard truth was summed up by a parent of one of the young Toronto 18 would-be terrorists when he warned, “They’re stealing our kids.” It’s time we started focusing on who “they” are.

While there has been significant work done on analyzing the general psychological profile of persons vulnerable to such radicalization, very few concrete measures have been taken to identify and then proactively target the means by which such radicalization occurs.

What follows, therefore, are specific action item suggestions to confront and defeat this newest security threat.

Counter-radicalization actions

1/ Ensure there is a clear and official awareness of the threat of extremist Islamism and domestic radicalization, and an understanding of the supportive Muslim Brotherhood’s long-term goals.

2/ Identify all Muslim Brotherhood links in Islamic groups including mosques and Islamic learning centers.

3/ Identify all Wahabbi/Saudi/Salafist linked funding of mosques and learning centers and Islamic organizations with a consideration of prohibiting it.

This issue has already been the subject of some media reporting and given the charitable or non-profit status of such organizations, the required information should be available. What’s required is personified by the mission statement of the Investigative Project on Terrorism: Investigate, Analyze, Expose.

4/ Improve “community outreach” efforts

Outreach to the Islamic community is a critical component of preventing radicalization, but it must be conducted on an informed basis so that the people included are not pursuing a contrary agenda. Authorities engaging in outreach activities must conduct sufficient background analysis to ensure that liaisons are established with persons genuinely seeking to prevent Islamist radicalization rather than with self-appointed “leaders” of the community whose views (public and private) are not representative of the communities they claim to represent. The goal is to both detect and assist people at risk of radicalization (and their families) and to help rehabilitate people who have been radicalized.

5/ Promote integration and identify segregation efforts

Successful integration into Western multicultural society is likely the best protection against radicalization, and thus efforts to promote it should be recognized and supported. Conversely, deliberate efforts by mosques, learning centers or Islamic organizations to promote segregation of Muslims away from the larger community should be recognized as cause for concern.

6/ Use existing legal tools

Use existing hate speech laws, which prohibit promoting hatred against groups based on religion, gender or other defined factors, for unlawful conduct that is part of Islamist radicalization. Also, use the full spectrum of civil regulatory tools to try to prevent publicly regulated facilities from being used to promote radicalization or activities which are contrary to defined Western societal values. This strategy of “using all the tools in the toolbox” will be controversial but will also likely expose such anti-social practices to the light of day, which is a good thing.

7/ Amend Immigration and Citizenship Legislation

These statutes could be amended to modernize inadmissibility or acquired citizenship revocation criteria to people who actively advocate or promote cultural, religious or racial intolerance, gender inequality or the elimination of any of secular democracy, individual liberty or the rule of secular law. It’s time we recognize that we do have a “culture” and it’s worth protecting and preserving.

8/ Proactive cyber efforts against recruitment/radicalization sites

Self-radicalization, aided by jihadi websites, is a reality facing intelligence and law enforcement personnel. While monitoring such sites is obviously a useful tactic, at some point the harm in allowing the glorification and recruitment outweighs the benefit of monitoring this activity. Deploying a proactive offensive cyber attack strategy to melt down the bad guys’ cyber and social media capabilities is worth considering.

9./ Protect children from radicalized parents

Children living in Western societies should receive the full benefit of our laws that are explicitly designed to protect them from harm, including anti-social indoctrination or abuse from their parents in the name of extremist Islam. This could provide refuge for victims of “honor violence,” like the murdered Aqsa Parvez and the Shafia sisters in Canada. These kids deserved better and we should ensure that such abuse does not continue because of a politically correct aversion to confronting the truth.

Western countries face an unprecedented threat to domestic security through the radicalization of persons to a nihilistic Islamist ideology, where death is a preferred tactic to discussion. These suggestions will legitimately generate controversy precisely because they go to the core of the threat, which is violence predicated on religious beliefs. It is clearly a difficult challenge, but one that must be undertaken with truth and candor as our guides.

This article is an update of the author’s previous columns for Front Line Security magazine and the Macdonald Laurier Institute.

Scott Newark is a former Alberta Crown Prosecutor who has also served as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, Vice Chair of the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, Director of Operations to the Washington D.C.-based Investigative Project on Terrorism and as a Security Policy Advisor to the Governments of Ontario and Canada

5 Troubling Takeaways From The Declassified 9/11 Pages

1534157424

Center for Security Policy, by Benjamin Weingarten, July 20, 2016:

The infamous 28 previously classified pages from Congress’ joint inquiry into intelligence activities surrounding 9/11 represent far more than a symbolic reckoning with a politically controversial history of apparent Saudi duplicity that the U.S. government felt it imperative to suppress.

As we continue to be struck by jihadists at home and abroad under an at best rudderless and at worst suicidal national security and foreign policy, the report’s substance is live, relevant and beckons critical questions that ought to be demanded by our representatives and the public at large.

Why the federal government in general, and Bush and Obama administrations in particular, sought to keep such information from the public for 15 years is a worthy question, as is the question of why law enforcement did not move to arrest and prosecute or deport many of the individuals associated with the 9/11 attack that were under investigation.

Hindsight is 20/20, it is an open secret that diplomatic officials in foreign countries frequently are involved in pernicious activities like espionage and are provided with certain privileges and immunities if not legally than politically derived. Intelligence and law enforcement officials must use their discretion as to whether to move on suspects or continue monitoring them in the hopes of uncovering bigger networks and threats.

But the suspicious activities and associations of the individuals described in these 28 pages are well beyond the pale, as are many of the report’s other findings.

Here are five of the most consequential points from the 28 declassified pages, along with the critical questions we must be demanding of our government:

  1. America subordinated National Security to politicsThe first page of the report notes that “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American “ally.”Given the House of Saud’s longtime funding of and overall support for Islamic supremacist Wahhabism around the world, this admission is stunning.And it raises questions that we should be asking today.

    Does the intelligence community not focus investigative resources on Saudi nationals in America today? How about nationals from other Sunni nations in the Middle East that harbor jihadists? What about Iranian nationals, now that the Islamic Republic upon whom we have lavished over $100 billion and offered protection of their nuclear infrastructure has become ade facto ally against ISIS?

    Was the decision not to pursue Saudi nationals a conscious move to subordinate national security considerations to political ones? Is this still American policy?

    There are other revelations as well that merit grave concern and inquiry.

  2. Jihadi front group Proliferated on American soil (and they persist)

    Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence officer who “provided substantial assistance” to two of the 9/11 hijackers was reportedly in contact with individuals under FBI investigation. He also communicated with others at the Holy Land Foundation, which had been under investigation for and ultimately would be charged with providing material support for Hamas as a fundraising front.The federal government today considers individuals from Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups to be legitimate law enforcement partners with whom to consult and to whom to outsource Countering Violent Extremism efforts. Glaringly, law enforcement continues to collaborate with The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case—in spite of policies to the contrary.Does law enforcement work to identify and monitor the activities of such groups? What are the standards for shutting down such groups? Does law enforcement monitor the activities of those tied to such groups and pursue investigations when merited? What specific policies and practices in place today would prevent other Omar al-Bayoumis from operating on American soil?

  3. Islamic Supremacist Mosques Proliferated on American Soil (And They Persist)

    Several times the 28 pages’ authors make reference to a mosque “widely known for its anti-Western views” that was created in 1998 with funding from the late Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The Culver City, CA-based King Fahad Mosque, then led by among others jihadist-supporting imam Sheikh al-Thumairy—an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles—remains open today.This raises a number of questions.If the King Fahad Mosque has not been shut down in spite of the facts described above, on what grounds would the government shut down a mosque? What, if any policies, has the federal government considered in connection with the funding of mosques and other institutions in the U.S. from regimes with ties to jihad? Does law enforcement monitor mosques for anti-Western or other subversive views today? Given exemptions for religious experts, what immigration protections are there to stop Islamic supremacist imams from entering the U.S.?It bears noting that a survey of 100 mosques in America revealed that 84.5% of such mosques had an imam recommending studying violence-positive texts. 58% of mosques invited guest imams who had been known to promote violent jihad.
  4. Jihadists believed Islamic supremacist immigration had hit critical mass over a decade ago

    Another vital section of the report concerns Osama Bassnan, an individual with extensive ties to both two of the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. Page 428 reads:

    Bassnan…stated to an FBI asset that he heard that the U.S. Government had stopped approving visas for foreign students. He considered such measures to be insufficient as there are already enough Muslims in the United States to destroy the United States and make it an Islamic state within ten to fifteen years.

    Juxtapose this statement with the fact that America has admitted approximately 1.6 million immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2013, among other critical data on Islamic immigration compiled by Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz.

    While Bassnan is just one man, whether our federal government recognizes it or not, immigration is a tenet of jihad known as “Al-Hijra.” While we fret over the potential for jihadist infiltration among refugees from the Middle East today, over a decade ago Islamic supremacists were already claiming that there was a critical mass of Islamic supremacists ready, willing and able to ultimately take down America.

    Should not all future immigration policies be formulated based upon an understanding of the jihadis’ goals, strategies and tactics? Should not current homeland security policies be focused upon isolating and removing the jihadist cancer already metastasizing within?

  5. Saudi self-interest trumped all, and America was (and is) willfully blind

    One of the most significant statements in the declassified pages comes courtesy of a veteran New York FBI agent. In light of Saudi recalcitrance when it came to Islamic terrorism investigations before and after 9/11, this agent “stated that, from his point of view, the Saudis have been useless and obstructionist for years. In this agent’s opinion, the Saudis will only act when it is in their self-interest.”The report goes on to cite several examples of Saudi non-cooperation.

    What is so critical here is that the FBI agent in question identified openly and honestly the nature of the House of Saud. His description could work for practically all other regimes not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

    One wonders, does U.S. foreign policy start from the first principle of identifying the nature of such regimes, as well as non-state actors with whom they may or may not be allied?

I would submit that self-evidently our national security and foreign policies do not recognize the comprehensive nature of the jihadist threat, Sunni and Shia, state and non-state, violent and civilizational, as has been reflected in numerous examples from the revelations of the recent Senate Judiciary Committee “willful blindness” hearing, to the redaction of the Orlando jihadist transcript, to the purging of documents that identify the very nature of the jihadist threat on American soil from law enforcement offices.

Given the perilous state of America’s national security and foreign policy today with respect to a global jihadist enemy that we fail to even call by its name, it is readily apparent that while we may have identified failures in connection with 9/11, we have not adequately answered the question as to what we must do to prevent such failures in the future.

The declassified 28 pages provide another opportunity for us to ask the necessary questions and seek out answers that may mean the difference between life and death for our nation.

Also see:

28 Pages Tie ‘Moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood To 9/11

1

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, July 19, 2016:

Washington has assumed the Muslim Brotherhood is, as President Obama’s intelligence czar put it, a nonviolent group “largely secular” in nature.  It has even invited Brotherhood figures into Muslim outreach powwows at both ends of Pennsylvania. But the newly declassified 28 pages detailing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks casts serious doubt on the assumption that the Brotherhood is a benign organization.

In fact, the now-largely uncensored section of the congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 reveals that U.S.-stationed Saudi intelligence officers who aided the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks were in contact with senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, suggesting the Saudi-funded Brotherhood was part of the support network for the hijackers and involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

For example consider page 416 of the Joint Inquiry report, a page that until last week had been completely blacked out for 14 years.  This page states that Saudi intelligence agent Omar al-Bayoumi, who assisted two of the Saudi hijackers with financing, housing and flight schools, was at the same time associating with several leaders of a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas charitable front known as the Holy Land Foundation.

“The FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under FBI investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas,” the report said. The Justice Department said the Holy Land Foundation was also a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.  The connection was later proven in Federal court.

Federal investigative sources tell CounterJihad that one of the Holy Land Foundation contacts was Mohammad el-Mezain, who in 2009 was convicted of providing material support to Hamas suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorist-financing case in US history. Bayoumi met with El-Mezain in San Diego, where he was handling two of the Saudi hijackers who went on to attack the Pentagon. Before his arrest, El-Mezain headed Holy Land Foundation’s San Diego office and also served as a leader in a local mosque attended by the hijackers.

El-Mezain, a hardcore Muslim Brother now serving out a 15-year federal prison sentence on Terminal Island in Los Angeles, was also in contact at the time with al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki.  Awlaki, later killed in a US drone strike, privately counseled the hijackers on martyrdom and jihad at a small, non-descript Saudi-funded mosque in San Diego, and later at a Saudi-built mosque in Falls Church, Va., where the hijackers followed him.

I have obtained Saudi Embassy travel itinerary showing Awlaki and El-Mezain acted together as tour guides on Saudi pilgrimages to Mecca.

The pair also once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex together. Federal investigators tell me El-Mezain likely met Awlaki (aka Aulaqi) in Fort Collins, Colo., around 1990, when the two were neighbors and attended the same local mosque. Authorities have traced El-Mezain’s address at the time to 500 West Prospect Rd. in Fort Collins. Awlaki also listed an address then at 500 West Prospect Rd. El-Mezain occupied Apt. 19C, while Awlaki rented Apt. 23L.

El-Mezain also happens to have been a major fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Washington-based Hamas front group that claims to be a “civil-rights organization.” The Justice Department implicated CAIR and its founder in the Holy Land Foundation case as unindicted co-conspirators, while identifying CAIR as a US front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch Hamas.

El-Mezain co-founded the Holy Land Foundation with Hamas terrorist Ghassan Elashi, who was also a founding CAIR director. Elashi is serving a 65-year prison term for funneling more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorist leaders. El-Mezain and Elashi are both related to fugitive Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

Elashi attended a secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 with Nihad Awad, the current executive director of CAIR, whom both the FBI and NSA have investigated and monitored for alleged terrorist activities. The next year, CAIR was formed.

CAIR is mentioned by name in secret Brotherhood documents as part of a 1994 agenda of a secret US “committee” to support Hamas — the smoking gun linking CAIR directly to the Hamas network inside America.  Those documents are reproduced in the appendix of Muslim Mafia:  Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

Does this tie CAIR into 9/11 along with the Holy Land Foundation? According to Muslim Mafia, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad once hosted the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, now a convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist, at his apartment in Santa Clara, California.  Ahmad also helped raise money for al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri through his Santa Clara mosque, which was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Before the 9/11 attacks, Bayoumi and another Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers in San Diego, Osama Bassnan, were investigated for ties to the Blind Sheik and who hosted a party for him. It’s not immediately known if Ahmad also attended that party, or if he had any contacts with the 9/11 hijackers or their Saudi handlers.

Attempts to reach Ahmad and Awad for comment were unsuccessful.

The nexus between the Saudis, the 9/11 hijackers and the Muslim Brotherhood runs even deeper.

Sources tell me that a still-redacted section of the Joint Inquiry report reveals that El-Mezain was also linked to 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui “through a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” who attempted to post bond for Moussaoui’s roommate. Moussaoui recently testified in a deposition that he got help and funding directly from Saudi royals during his stay in America.

There’s yet another direct tie between al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood: the former head of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s shura council was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Abdurahman Alamoudi, who infiltrated both the Clinton and Bush administrations, is now serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism.

In 1996, Alamoudi — who founded the Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque — told a Muslim audience in Illinois: “Either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

As the White House and Homeland Security continue to conduct outreach with Muslim Brotherhood front groups, declassification of 9/11 investigative documents reveal that these very same groups may have played a role alongside several Saudi government conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. They also reveal that the hijackers got help obtaining housing and IDs, along with other support, while attending several Muslim Brotherhood-controlled mosques in California, Arizona, Florida, Virginia and other states.

This terrorist support network is still in place inside America.

Also see:

IPT Exclusive: Witnesses Say CAIR’s Hamas/MB Links Cemented From Start

IPT News
December 14, 2015:

1303Like a good politician, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) repeatedly proves adept at inserting itself into national debates.

When presidential candidate Ben Carson said he could not support a Muslim president, CAIR gathered reporters to express outrage and call on Carson to drop out of the race. When a 14-year-old Texas boy was detained for bringing what he said was a homemade clock to school that a teacher feared might be a bomb, a CAIR official expressed outrage and sat by the boy’s side during news conferences and interviews.

And in the immediate aftermath of the Dec. 2 mass killings in San Bernardino by a radicalized Muslim man and his wife, CAIR called a news conference where its top Los Angeles official “unequivocally” condemned the killings.

CAIR’s aggressive approach, and a combination of media ignorance or laziness, generates uncritical television and newspaper stories throughout the country. This helps the organization reinforce its self-anointed and incorrect reputation as the voice for America’s roughly 2 million Muslims. CAIR is presented as a responsible, moderate organization.

But when cracks appear in that façade, journalists rarely rise to the occasion. Less than two days later, the same CAIR official who unequivocally condemned the San Bernardino killings appeared on CNN to blame “our foreign policy” for fueling radicalization that leads to such violence.

In blaming the United States for an attack by radical Islamists, CAIR- Los Angeles director Hussam Ayloush picked up talking points CAIR officials pushed in the wake of last month’s ISIS massacres in Paris. The aim is to keep the killers’ religious motivations out of any conversation.

“We are partly responsible,” Ayloush said about the United States. “Terrorism is a global problem, not a Muslim problem. And the solution has to be global. Everyone has a role in it.”

Anchor Chris Cuomo did not challenge this statement.

Such uncritical news coverage comes despite a well-documented record establishing CAIR’s own ties to terrorists. Internal Muslim Brotherhood records obtained by the FBI place CAIR and its founders at the core of a Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in the United States. It is a history so checkered that formal FBI policy since 2008 bars interaction with its officials except in criminal investigations.

On Thursday, CAIR legislative director Corey Saylor told the Wall Street Journal that the alleged Hamas ties were “put to rest by the Department of Justice in 2011 and now exists as an Internet story.”

This is a lie. Saylor knows that the FBI policy toward CAIR remains in effect, and it waspublicly reaffirmed in 2013. And there simply is no way to “put to rest” the internal records admitted into evidence in 2008.

FBI records recently obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism further illustrate why CAIR merits closer scrutiny, rather than free air time, from the mainstream media. The records cement CAIR’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas from its very foundation, including disclosures about the only executive director CAIR has ever had – Nihad Awad.

Before he helped create CAIR 21 years ago, Awad moved from Dallas to Washington, D.C. “in order to represent Hamas,” an acquaintance said.

Awad’s co-founder Omar Ahmad sought the blessing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to proceed with the new political start-up. That approval went as far as getting the global Islamist movement’s blessing over CAIR’s bylaws.

These accounts came from separate sources, each of whom ran in the same Islamist circles as Awad and Ahmad, during interviews with the FBI in 2005 and in 2009-10. They were among more than 1,000 pages of FBI records released to the IPT, via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The IPT sought records from the 2010deportation of another CAIR official, former national board member Nabil Sadoun.

Sadoun’s deportation resulted at least in part from his “connections to HAMAS, HAMAS leader Mousa Abu Marzook, and HAMAS front organizations,” papers filed in Immigration Court show. Sadoun was a longtime CAIR national board member and served as president of the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), the 1,013-page FOIA response shows.

“MAYA served as a conduit for money to HAMAS, through the HLF [Holy Land Foundation], and served as a forum where HAMAS could promote its ideology and recruit new members,” a February 2010 declaration filed in Sadoun’s deportation casesaid. He also made anti-Semitic statements and advocated for violent jihad during an interview in a MAYA publication. (For more on Sadoun, click here)

Read more

I Am An Islamophobe

CI7-0c8VEAAs6BX

By George Garbow

I am an Islamophobe, I’m proud to be an Islamophobe and you should be proud to.

You should be proud of the fact that you criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts the Quran and the Hadith’s tells it’s followers to not take non-muslims as friends, to lie to and deceive non-muslims in order to advance the spread of Islam and that there will never be any peace in the world until every single person on this planet either by persuasion or violent force becomes a Muslim. You should be proud to criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts condones and encourages the cruel treatment of animals for Halal meat, the beating of disobedient wives and the taking of non-muslim women and children as sex slaves by muslim men. You should be proud of the fact that you speak out about a religion that instructs it’s followers in the Quran and Hadith’s to terrorise and force all non-muslims to live as subservient slaves under their Muslim masters, to crucify and behead any non Muslims who disobey their masters in any country in the world where Muslims live and to make war on anyone who tries to stop them doing this. You should be proud to oppose a religion that considers Mohammed to be the most perfect man, a man who in the Muslim Hadith’s is praised and revered for being a thief, a peadophile and a murderer. You should be proud that by being an Islamophobe you are standing up to Western politicians and the Western media who out of fear and cowardice and for their own personal greed are trying to stop you telling the undeniable truth about what Islam teaches to it’s followers and the crimes against humanity that it is responsible for throughout history and that we see happening all around the world today.

You should be proud of the fact that the use of the word Islamophobe by our politicians and the media will not silence you and will not make you live in fear as they do. Be proud of the fact that by being an Islamophobe shows you care about the victims of this religion, you care about the muslim women who are forced to wear the Burqa and are treated as second-class citizens under Islamic law, you care about the non-muslim women who are taken as sex slaves by muslim man, you care about the children who are raped by Muslim men as they follow the teachings an example of their prophet, you care about the victims of Muslim terrorism and violence who are being shot, stoned, crucified and beheaded in the name of this religion all around the world today. So be proud to be called an Islamophobe by cowards and liars because it shows that in this world you choose right over wrong and good over evil and that you will not live your life on your knees.

So be proud of the fact that you are an Islamophobe.

***

SIX SURE SIGNS SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS AN ISLAMOPHOBE by Eric Allen Bell

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history of an Islamic “charity.” This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum.” In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America declared a “Civilization Jihad.”  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated its intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia.” In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is. But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes.”

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are six ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word “liberty” means “freedom” and that the word “Islam” literally means “submission.” And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamophobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God-given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.”  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grassroots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popular opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes,” however, do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such is the job of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – “Islamophobes” tend to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Sharia), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe.”

The word “Islamophobia” literally means an irrational fear of the ideology known as Islam.  It is misapplied, as this is in fact the intention of the word. Someone with an irrational fear of Islam would more likely make a statement such as, “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”  And really, what kind of a spineless coward would say something so utterly ridiculous? (Barack Hussein Obama, addressing the United Nations, October 2012.)

Those who are called the “Islamophobes” are generally anything but. However, they are strong enough not to allow cheap name calling to stop them from honoring their moral convictions.  The “Islamophobes” are our best and our brightest.  These are the people who can see around corners, connect the dots, spot a pattern, and are true to their moral intuition – even when it is inconvenient.

The so-called “Islamophobes” have the courage to speak out.  It has been said that “liberty is paid for in installments, one generation at a time.”  If you feel in your heart that you are ready to make your payment, to continue the legacy of freedom and liberty that has been paid for dearly by those brave men and women who have gone before us, then now is your time.  Now is our time.  Be willing to be branded an “Islamophobe.”  And if you are already a semi-active “Islamophobe” may I suggest becoming a “Raging Islamophobe.”  A word of caution: This could result in some people not liking you.  But if that is all that is being asked of us, for now, to stand up for liberty, to champion the cause of freedom — then being labeled an “Islamophobe” is a small price to pay.  In fact, to be an “Islamophobe” is an honor.

***

Picture-16 (1)

Download the pdf:

Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
By: David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

More Blind Hate Toward Israel From a CAIR Official

1189IPT News, July 9, 2015:

Lamis Deek, a lawyer and board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations-New York (CAIR-NY), is a self-described “Human Rights Advocate” dedicated to promoting justice and human rights – except when it comes to Israel.

In a response to a report Monday that President Obama intends to grant clemency to nonviolent drug offenders, Deek called on the president to release “Political Prisoners” including convicted terrorist financiers and a convicted killer.

“Ok,” Deek wrote on her Facebook page, “and how’s about freeing a [sic] the Political Prisoners then… free Mumia Abu Jamal, Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Holy Land Five, Leonard Peltier and all our political prisoners now!”

Those named share an iconic status within the far Left. Two, Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal, are convicted killers. Abu-Jamal, a former member of the radical Black Panther Party, was convicted in 1982 for killing a Philadelphia police officer. In 2012, Abu Jamal lost his last legal appeal after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a challenge concerning forensic evidence surrounding the case.

The “Holy Land Five” refers to five officials from the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation who were convicted in 2008 of illegally transferring over $12 million to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization committed to attacking Israeli civilians and the destruction of the Jewish state.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis said before sentencing the five to prison terms ranging from 15 to 65 years.

Supporters continue to describe the five as victims of overzealous post-9/11 prosecutions who simply raised money for deprived Palestinians, and were never connected to any violence.

However, evidence and testimony presented at the trial showed the HLF sent money to Palestinian charities under Hamas control. In addition, HLF and its leaders were part of a secret Hamas-support network in the United States created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Internal committee documents show that the Palestine Committee was designed to serve Hamas with “media, money and men.”

1190Deek’s support for the Holy Land defendants is perfectly consistent with her general position on Israel. When it comes to Israel, Deek’s human rights advocacy turns into vociferous hate for a nation and people. She does not shy away from propagating her belief that Israel should cease to exist. In a Twitter post last month, she wrote, “No impunity, ears to the ground, eyes on creative ways to weaken the genocidal zionist regime…”

It’s an ironic statement, given that Deek has voiced support for Hamas. In its charter, Hamas calls for genocide against Jews and for Israel’s destruction.

During the 2012 war between Israel and Hamas, Deek tweeted that Gaza is a “beacon of resistance, exposes shackles, awakens dignity, inspires revolution, reaffirms our oneness – the reason ‘israel’ won’t last”.

During a 2009 fundraiser for an effort to break Israel’s embargo against the Hamas government in Gaza, Deek explained that Palestinian support for Hamas is a choice for “one united Palestinian state on all of the 1948 territories from the north to the very south. That is what Palestinians chose. And in supporting Palestinian choice we are saying we support their right to liberation from violent colonialism.”

By openly calling for pre-1967 Israel’s destruction, Deek’s anti-Zionist views transcend into the realm of anti-Semitism.

1192Last August she posted photos on her Facebook account glorifying terrorists from the Al-Quds Brigades – the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist organization that has directly participated in the systematic murder of Israeli civilians since the 1990s.

Deek is hardly alone in her hatred for Israel, and the resulting American Islamists’ rationalization of terrorist violence. Fellow CAIR officials Hussam Ayloush and Zahra Billoo have equated Israel’s army, the IDF, with the marauding barbarians of ISIS, who post grisly videos of their creative methods to kill anyone who crosses their path.

1195Billoo did it again June 16, in response to an article about Westerners who join ISIS, under a headline wondering whether they were criminals or victims. “Are westerners who go to fight for the Israeli Defense Forces victims, or racist, apartheid promoting criminals?” she asked. A previous post expressed more fear of the FBI and the IDF than of ISIS.

She has also spread blatant lies about Israel’s involvement in U.S. law enforcement community engagement.

In 2012, Deek spewed ridiculous conspiracies of the Israeli Mossad posing as FBI agents in America seeking to entrap Muslim Americans during a “Know Your Rights” presentation at a CAIR leadership conference and chapter banquet.

“It was discovered or published that a lot of the interviews that Muslims believed they were going into with the FBI, it turns out it wasn’t with the FBI at all … Guess who it was? Mossad, Israeli intelligence in New York and New Jersey,” Deek said.

Deek’s desire to see an existing nation destroyed and her moral support for Hamas speak volumes about her “human rights” priorities. It’s one thing to advocate for Palestinian nationalism and ways to improve Palestinian lives. But when that position is based on blind hate and the embrace of a terrorist organization which rejects a peaceful settlement and devotes itself instead to death and destruction, she loses any moral high ground and should lose all credibility.

White House Statement Ignores Brotherhood’s Continuing Hamas Support

797IPT News
December 5, 2014

The White House this week issued a statement explaining why it does not view the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. It was in response to an online petition which attracted more than 213,000 signatures in support of designating the Egyptian-based group.

The statement emphasizes a lack of “credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence.”

The Brotherhood has another decades-long commitment, however, one that clearly endorses and supports terrorist attacks against Israel. That support began with Article Two of the Hamas charter, which clearly identifies it as “one of the wings of Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” It continues today with statements inciting and supporting Hamas attacks.

As the war between Israel and Gaza raged in August, a statement on the Brotherhood’s website translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism praised “the valiant resistance factions [who] gave them [Palestinians] a lesson in heroism, faith, and courage. They decimated their soldiers and their officers…” Violent confrontation, the statement continued, “is the natural position which must be adopted with the heroes of Palestine, who have proven that the defeat of the Zionists as possible, which is closer when the will of the Umma [people] is united, with God’s will.”

President Obama publicly stood by Israel’s “right to defend itself against what I consider to be inexcusable attacks from Hamas,” including its indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli civilian communities. The Brotherhood, by contrast, called for more attacks and “the defeat of the Zionists.”

That was not enough for the administration to question its “decades-long commitment to non-violence.” Other Brotherhood statements show that this is consistent rhetoric, even in more peaceful times.

A June message called “resistance to the occupier Zionist enemy” – a sterilized reference to terrorism – “a legitimate right and a sacred duty approved by all laws and customs and constitutions, and it is the only viable way to restore rights and reply to aggression.”

An April 2010 statement, marking the 62nd anniversary of Israel’s creation – what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe – said the only acceptable path is to continue trying to destroy an existing country.

“T]he Zionist destruction will only be by an Islamic, Arab plan which rejects peace begging initiative proposed since 2002; rejects normalization measures with the Zionist entity; reviews peace agreements and diplomatic relations with it; rejects foolish negotiations between Zionists and Palestinians which are like negotiations between the lamb and the wolf pack,” the Brotherhood statement said.

The United States has considered Hamas a terrorist group since 1995, when President Bill Clinton signed an executive order decrying “grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process” and threaten American national security.

The United States has a record of aggressively pursuing Hamas-support operations within the country. It shut down the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF)’s assets in December 2001, labeling it a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. This action was based on the foundation’s routing of millions of dollars to Hamas-controlled charities in the West Bank and Gaza. Later, the governmentprosecuted and a jury convicted the foundation and five former officials.

Internal records seized by the FBI and entered into evidence in that prosecution showed that HLF operated under the umbrella of a group called the Palestine Committee, which was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and tasked with supporting Hamas politically and financially.

Some might argue that was a long time ago. But a look at Brotherhood actions and rhetoric indicates it continues to be fully supportive of Hamas and its violent attacks against Israelis.

Reports earlier this week indicate that members of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood branch were arrested for trying to smuggle weapons into the West Bank to facilitate terror attacks.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered the Brotherhood’s most influential cleric, urged Muslimsto wage “the greatest battle of liberation” against Israel and the Jews in an online posting last month. Qaradawi, who also has a highly-rated program on Al-Jazeera, has an ever-expanding record of endorsing terrorist attacks and has prayed for the chance to “go to the land of Jihad and resistance” and “shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews,” before he dies.

Interpol issued a bulletin Friday indicating that Qaradawi, 88, was wanted by Egyptian authorities for “incitement and assistance to commit intentional murder.”

After Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a Brotherhood official, was forced from office in July 2013 in the wake of massive street protests against his rule, the Brotherhood’s political party posted a memo on Facebook inciting followers to take out their frustrations by burning Coptic churches.

“The Pope of the Church (Coptic Pope Tawadros II) took part in the ouster of the first elected Islamist president. The Pope of the Church charges Islamic Sharia with underdevelopment [and] stagnation,” the memo from the Freedom and Justice Party’s branch in Egypt’s Helwan Governorate, near Cairo, said.

“And for the Church to adopt a war against Islam and Muslims is the worst crime. For every action is a reaction.”

Before Morsi’s ouster, the White House welcomed a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood officials, even helping clear their path to avoid standard airport inspections as they landed in the United States.

State Department officials had numerous contacts with Brotherhood officials in the years leading up to Egypt’s Arab Spring revolution.

U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson reported in an April 2010 cable that Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie had “reaffirmed the MB was a non-violent” movement.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper similarly described the Muslim Brotherhood in February 2011 as “largely secular” and said that it “eschewed violence.” Four months later, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. planned to expand dialogue with the Brotherhood as part of a commitment “to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence.”

Read more